Yacapin v. Balida
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over three parcels of land located in Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City: lot no. 2384 (96,919 sq. m.), lot no. 2478 (25,202 sq. m.), and lot no. 2338 (824 sq. m.). Lot no. 2384 was originally registered in the names of Donato Yacapin, Martina Yacapin, and Valentina Yacapin. Lot no. 2478 was registered in the names of Rodrigo Yacapin, Donato Yacapin, Valentina Yacapin, Martina Yacapin, Anastacia Yacapin, Esteban Yacapin, and Felino San Jose. Lot no. 2338 was registered to Valentina Yacapin and Anastacia Yacapin. The core of the dispute revolves around the rightful heirs of Valentina Yacapin, with petitioners claiming she died childless and they are her intestate heirs, while respondents assert they are her compulsory heirs. Procedural History: In 1991, respondents filed an action for partition, annulment of titles, and damages against petitioners in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Subsequently, petitioners filed a similar action against respondents. The RTC consolidated these cases. After trial, the RTC issued a decision on December 5, 1993, recognizing respondents as Valentina's children and compulsory heirs, nullifying certain titles, and ordering the division of the properties. Petitioners appealed this decision but later moved to withdraw their appeal, which the Court of Appeals (CA) granted, dismissing the appeal. The dismissal became final. Petitioners then moved for a new trial in the RTC, which was denied. Following this, respondents sought execution of the RTC decision, which was granted. Petitioners' motion to quash the writ of execution was denied, and their subsequent petition for certiorari in the CA was also dismissed. Years later, petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the CA, alleging extrinsic fraud in the RTC decision. The CA dismissed this petition, finding that petitioners failed to establish the discovery date of the alleged fraud and that they had not availed of ordinary remedies without fault. The CA also noted that if fraud was suspected, an administrative case against the judge should have been filed earlier. The Petition: The present petition seeks to set aside the CA's resolutions dated June 4, 2004, and March 6, 2005, which dismissed their petition for annulment of the RTC's December 5, 1993 decision. Petitioners argue that the RTC decision was procured through extrinsic fraud, specifically alleging collusion between the presiding judge and respondents due to the admission of a falsified death certificate for Valentina. They contend that this death certificate was spurious as it lacked the signature of the local civil registrar. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners also implead RAC Commercial Corporation and its shareholders, who purchased land from respondents, as parties.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment. Whether the December 5, 1993 RTC decision was procured through extrinsic fraud. Whether petitioners are barred from filing a petition for annulment of judgment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. Petitioners are held solidarily liable with their counsel for treble costs of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for annulment of judgment: The Court reiterated that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is an equitable remedy available only when ordinary remedies like a motion for new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available without the petitioner's fault. It requires the presence of either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the petitioners had already availed of the remedy of appeal, which they subsequently withdrew, and also filed a motion for new trial. Their failure to pursue these ordinary remedies, or their withdrawal of the appeal, was attributable to them. Therefore, recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment was improper. The Court noted that the petitioners' actions appeared to be a tactic to unduly delay the enforcement of the final RTC decision and defeat its execution. On the alleged extrinsic fraud: The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish the existence of extrinsic fraud. They claimed that the RTC decision was procured through collusion with respondents and the admission of a falsified death certificate of Valentina. However, they did not provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim, particularly failing to establish when they discovered the alleged fraud. The Court also pointed out that if petitioners had strong evidence of collusion, they should have filed an administrative case against the presiding judge much earlier. The RTC's finding that Valentina had children was based on evidence and circumstances presented during the trial, and the petitioners' subsequent withdrawal of their appeal indicated their acceptance of the trial court's factual findings at that time. On the procedural bar to annulment of judgment: The Court emphasized that a petition for annulment of judgment cannot be resorted to if the petitioner has already availed of ordinary remedies such as appeal or a motion for new trial, or if the failure to avail of these remedies was due to their own fault. In this case, the petitioners had filed an appeal and a motion for new trial. Their subsequent withdrawal of the appeal, citing lack of sufficient evidence and finality of facts, effectively barred them from filing a petition for annulment of judgment based on the same grounds or alleged fraud that could have been raised during the appeal. The Court viewed the repeated legal actions as an attempt to delay the execution of a final and executory judgment.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy that is only available when ordinary remedies like a motion for new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available without the petitioner's fault. It requires proof of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Failure to avail of these remedies due to causes attributable to the petitioner, or having already availed of them, bars recourse to annulment of judgment. Repeatedly filing frivolous appeals and petitions to delay enforcement of a final judgment warrants imposition of treble costs.